Delhi

StateCommission

FA/207/2014

RELIANCE GIC LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

JAGBIR SINGH - Opp.Party(s)

03 Jul 2014

ORDER

 

 

 

IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI

(Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

Date of Decision:29.07.2015

First Appeal- 207/2014

(Arising out of the order dated 24.10.2013 passed in Complainant Case No. 922/2009 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-VI, New Delhi)

Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd.,

Plot No.60, Okhla Industrial Area,

Phase-III, New Delhi.

                                                                                 ….Appellant

Versus

Shri Jagbir Singh,

S/o Sh. Ran Singh,

R/No. H.No.100,

Village Khera Khurd,

Narela, New Delhi.

….Respondent

CORAM

Justice Veena Birbal, President

Salma Noor, Member

OP Gupta, Member(Judicial)

 

1.     Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?

2.      To be referred to the reporter or not?

 

Justice Veena Birbal, President

 

1. This is an appeal wherein challenge has been made to order dated 24.10.13 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (in short the “District Forum”) in Complaint Case No.922/2009.

 

2. Briefly the facts relevant for the disposal of the appeal are as under:

Respondent herein was the complainant before the District Forum.  A complaint was filed by him under Section 12 of the Act alleging therein that he was the owner of vehicle No.HR-38M-9643 which was insured with the appellant/OP vide Policy No.1301372314102798 for the period 30.05.2007 to 29.05.2008.  The said vehicle was stolen on the intervening night of 2/3.12.2007 and the matter was reported to the police and also to the appellant.  The appellant had appointed surveyor who asked the respondent to furnish certain documents.  Thereafter the relevant documents were furnished but the appellant/OP did not process the claim which amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the appellant.  Accordingly, prayer was made to the District Forum for directing the appellant/OP to pay the claim amount and also to pay compensation and litigation expenses.

3. The claim was contested by the appellant/OP by filing written statement.  It was alleged that the claim was repudiated vide repudiation letter dated 7.3.2009 and the reasons were given therein for repudiating the claim.  It was alleged that the District Forum without going through the material on record i.e. stand taken in the written statement, supporting documents thereto including repudiation letter gave a finding that the respondent did not process the claim and remained silent and neither settled nor passed any order on claim and directed the appellant to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation and Rs.11,000/- towards litigation expenses.
4. Aggrieved with the abovesaid order, the present appeal is filed.
5. Ld. Counsel for the appellant/OP has submitted that the District Forum has ignored the material on record.  It is submitted that the claim of the respondent was processed and same was repudiated vide letter dated 7.3.2009 which was also communicated to the respondent.  It is contended that the claim was repudiated on the ground that only one ignition key of the vehicle was provided to the appellant whereas the second key was not provided and as per documents/investigation, the second key was left inside the vehicle and thus the vehicle was left in a drivable condition which contributed to the theft of vehicle as such there was breach of Condition No.4 of Insurance Policy and the claim was rightly repudiated.
6. Nothing contrary is pointed out by the Ld. Counsel for respondent.
7. It may be noticed that while deciding the complaint, the Ld. District Forum has not taken into consideration the defence of appellant stated in the written statement and also evidence given by appellant/OP in the term of affidavit.  There are documents on record supporting the stand of the respondent.  All have been ignored while passing the impugned order.  The case is decided on the assumption that the appellant did not process the claim of the respondent without any reason. 
8. We may mention that after some arguments, Ld. Counsel for the respondent also stated that he has no objection if the impugned order is set aside and the matter be remanded back to the District Forum for deciding the same afresh after considering the entire material on record including the written statement of the appellant/OP as well as the evidence led by it before the District Forum.
9. Accordingly we allow the appeal and set aside the impugned order and remand back the case to the Ld. District Forum for deciding afresh after taking into consideration the entire material on record.
10. The parties shall appear before the District Forum on 29.9.15. 
11. A copy of this order as per the statutory requirement be forwarded to the parties free of charge and also to the concerned District Forum along with record of District Forum and thereafter the file be consigned to Record Room.

 

(Justice Veena Birbal)

• President

 

 

(Salma Noor)

Member

 

 

(OP Gupta)

Member(Judicial)